Exercises in applied mimetics
Futilitist
- Prisoners
- Chatty
- Posts: 175
Ashvin,
I am so glad to see that this thread is still alive and well. Some time ago, I tried to begin a conversation with you here that I would now like to continue. This topic totally fascinates me. Please take some time to review the comments I posted here earlier (they are on page 2). There are a couple of questions there that have not yet been addressed. If you wouldn't mind, could you please address them now, here? Thanks.
---futilitist's ghost
Ashvin
- Thinker
- Posts: 400
Futilitist,
Is the post you are referring to?
The concept of redemption cannot be a powerful one for the atheist, because there is no one worthy to redeem you (that you are aware of and accept). You can't be redeemed by yourself, some human guru, the Pope or the laws of nature. Redemption only has meaning in the context of a person who is uniquely situated to forgive you for your evil nature/deeds and atone for them, i.e. Jesus Christ.
If you are implying here that you were scapegoated in a manner similar to Jesus, you are wrong. Jesus never made a huge display of what was being done to Him, and, in fact, it was all a part of God's plan. He never once blamed other people or God for the fate that He had to suffer in the name of God's truth... which is exactly the opposite of the display you have shown on these threads - it was fantastic display of projection and external blame, and it had very little to do with reasoned analysis of the truth. When Jesus was scourged and ridiculed and berated, how did He respond? Compare that to how you responded to Karpatok and me and others.
Is the post you are referring to?
Ashvin,
Even for an atheist like myself, the concept of redemption is a powerful one. But for a religious nut job like you, it just twists you up in knots. People like you never seem to be able to come to terms with their own guilt and complicity. I, too, find it tragic that I must be dragged kicking and screaming to my own crucifixion in RE's Smokehouse. But now you have to live with your part in that crime. I think it serves you right. And you call yourself a Christian! Shame on you.
The concept of redemption cannot be a powerful one for the atheist, because there is no one worthy to redeem you (that you are aware of and accept). You can't be redeemed by yourself, some human guru, the Pope or the laws of nature. Redemption only has meaning in the context of a person who is uniquely situated to forgive you for your evil nature/deeds and atone for them, i.e. Jesus Christ.
If you are implying here that you were scapegoated in a manner similar to Jesus, you are wrong. Jesus never made a huge display of what was being done to Him, and, in fact, it was all a part of God's plan. He never once blamed other people or God for the fate that He had to suffer in the name of God's truth... which is exactly the opposite of the display you have shown on these threads - it was fantastic display of projection and external blame, and it had very little to do with reasoned analysis of the truth. When Jesus was scourged and ridiculed and berated, how did He respond? Compare that to how you responded to Karpatok and me and others.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 07:26:39 PM by Ashvin »
Report to moderator 
Logged
Ashvin,
Religionists do not hold the patent on redemption.
As far as the resemblance of The Passion of the Futilitist to The Passion of the Chrsit, this is going to take some time to explain to you. It all goes back to Rene Girard's mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism. Unfortunately, I have another engagement right now and so I will have to continue this with you tomorrow. But this really is the crux of what I want to talk about with you. I'm glad you are willing to approach this with an open mind. Please forgive the crude nature of the post from which you drew my question. It was not meant for your eyes, but more to attract the eyes of new readers. A bit agressive for sure, but not aimed at you personally. Thank you for understanding that, and finding the serious question within.
---futilitist's ghost
Hey RE,
I'm reposting this here. Please let this count as my one question for tomorrow. I want to talk about mimetic desire, which is a very serious subject. I thought you wanted to me to "post up". The one post a day thing makes a dialog next to impossible. But it would help some if everyone was at least aware of the one post rule so they are not wondering what is taking so long. Thanks.
The post above was removed by RE and he then sent me the following Personal Message:
Logged
Futilitist
- Prisoners
- Chatty
- Posts: 175.5
Ashvin,
Religionists do not hold the patent on redemption.
As far as the resemblance of The Passion of the Futilitist to The Passion of the Chrsit, this is going to take some time to explain to you. It all goes back to Rene Girard's mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism. Unfortunately, I have another engagement right now and so I will have to continue this with you tomorrow. But this really is the crux of what I want to talk about with you. I'm glad you are willing to approach this with an open mind. Please forgive the crude nature of the post from which you drew my question. It was not meant for your eyes, but more to attract the eyes of new readers. A bit agressive for sure, but not aimed at you personally. Thank you for understanding that, and finding the serious question within.
---futilitist's ghost
Hey RE,
I'm reposting this here. Please let this count as my one question for tomorrow. I want to talk about mimetic desire, which is a very serious subject. I thought you wanted to me to "post up". The one post a day thing makes a dialog next to impossible. But it would help some if everyone was at least aware of the one post rule so they are not wondering what is taking so long. Thanks.
The post above was removed by RE and he then sent me the following Personal Message:
RE
- Administrator
- Gunslinger
- Posts: 2567
If you have Questions for Ashvin/Watson on his philosophy, go ask him on his Pictures of Christ Blog. Pick another Topic for your 1 Post a Day here on the Diner. I suggest Economics or Geopolitics or Doomsteading. Those are the Main Topics here, not Christianity.
RE
RE
Futilitist
- Prisoners
- Chatty
- Posts: 176
Note: This message is awaiting approval by a moderator.
I don't want to talk about Economics, Geopolitics, or Doomsteading. I want to talk about the science of mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism, and it's implications on human nature in an apocalypse. That is where I would lead Ashvin if you would let me. I have to start somewhere. I will use the logic of Futilitism to prove there is no god, jesus or santa claus. At the same time I will prove that your favorite subjects of economics and geopolitics are just bullshit stories, too. And so is every other cause that anyone wants to push down anyone else's throat. These are just stories that humans tell themselves. Free will is a story. Democracy is a story. The USA is a story. Money is a story. Authority is a story. Power is a story. Napalm is a story (at least your version is).
Here is how I carefully explained this to Karpatok, of all people:
Read the above statement carefully. Think about it. This is where all my arguments with anybody will end. Karpatok, Ashvin, or You. I will win this argument because it is based on the most up to date philosophy and science. I will also win because I will use the approach of Socrates and Giordano Bruno. I am absolutely relentless. And I am smarter, as well. And funnier.
And I do dialog, not dissertation. Socratic. That is just my style. 5000 words is your style.
And I am a professional writter. What do you pay? Is it by the word or article?
I don't work for you.
---futilitist's ghost
If you have Questions for Ashvin/Watson on his philosophy, go ask him on his Pictures of Christ Blog. Pick another Topic for your 1 Post a Day here on the Diner. I suggest Economics or Geopolitics or Doomsteading. Those are the Main Topics here, not Christianity.
RE
I don't want to talk about Economics, Geopolitics, or Doomsteading. I want to talk about the science of mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism, and it's implications on human nature in an apocalypse. That is where I would lead Ashvin if you would let me. I have to start somewhere. I will use the logic of Futilitism to prove there is no god, jesus or santa claus. At the same time I will prove that your favorite subjects of economics and geopolitics are just bullshit stories, too. And so is every other cause that anyone wants to push down anyone else's throat. These are just stories that humans tell themselves. Free will is a story. Democracy is a story. The USA is a story. Money is a story. Authority is a story. Power is a story. Napalm is a story (at least your version is).
Here is how I carefully explained this to Karpatok, of all people:
Quote from: Futilitist, pre-ghost
Karpatok,
From a social psychology frame, I would say that you are expressing your righteous indignation. And I agree with most everything you say. The problem is a scientific and philosophical one. From the perspective of scientific Futilitism, we all posses a 'moral instinct'. Out of that instinct grows what we call 'morality'. Morality is a social mechanism distinct from the moral instinct from which it grew. It has a social function. A philosophical Futilitist would say it this way: "Morality makes indignation righteous". Once righteous, this particular indignation meme joins the Darwinian meme competition matrix. In terms of game theory, it's righteousness is self evident to you and others who might share your view. But not necessarily everyone else. It has no particular leg up in the meme competition. The big picture is that, because of the biological imperatives inherent in the way humans evolved, there is no chance for your meme to win. We simply can't control our own biology as a species. We are not smarter than yeast.
But I sincerely applaud your efforts.
Read the above statement carefully. Think about it. This is where all my arguments with anybody will end. Karpatok, Ashvin, or You. I will win this argument because it is based on the most up to date philosophy and science. I will also win because I will use the approach of Socrates and Giordano Bruno. I am absolutely relentless. And I am smarter, as well. And funnier.
And I do dialog, not dissertation. Socratic. That is just my style. 5000 words is your style.
And I am a professional writter. What do you pay? Is it by the word or article?
I don't work for you.
---futilitist's ghost
RE
- Administrator
- Gunslinger
- Posts: 2476
And I am a professional writter. What do you pay? Is it by the word or article?
I don't work for you.
---futilitist's ghost
Professional Writters should learn to SPELL correctly, or at least use Spell Check before they post up.
In any event, your Post of the Day is now UP on the Diner Forum F-Bomb! 
[note to Diners: F-Bomb now gets 1 Post a Day out of solitary if he writes something of marginal value]Far as PAYING you to write Napalm goes, I'll get back to you on that one if/when I monetize the Diner. Right NOW, NOBODY gets paid here, it's all Pro Bono, Save As Many As You Can work.
The fact you do not want to discuss ANYTHING the Diner concerns itself with like Economics, Geopolitics or Doomsteading is a BIG part of the reason you are a PRISONER here. If you wanna discuss Futilitism, do it on your own Futilitist Blog for crying out loud! Write the Fucking Futilitist Manifesto! If you actually write something coherent there I might even Cross Post it!
Socratic Method my ASS! You're a NAPALM ARTIST! I know this because I BTDT. Yeesh.
RE
Ashvin
- Thinker
- Posts: 400
Read the above statement carefully. Think about it. This is where all my arguments with anybody will end. Karpatok, Ashvin, or You. I will win this argument because it is based on the most up to date philosophy and science.
This is totally wrong, unless "up to date" means 19th and early 20th century. The naturalist evolutionary paradigm has been completely dissected by modern science, mainly in the areas of cosmology/astronomy and biology. The naturalist has no credible explanations for the origin of the Universe, the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the Universe, the origin of life, the origin of humanity, the development of irreducibly complex structures in living organisms (only need one to cast doubt on neo-Darwinism), the origin of information (specified complexity) in DNA, the increasing number of important functions being discovered for so-called "junk DNA", among many other things.
The Bible is obviously not primarily intended by God to be a scientific manual (the question of why God created is much more important than the question of how), but, nevertheless, Biblical creation models can be established, make predictions and tested against evolutionary models. Here's an example of one that already has a huge leg up on Big Bang evolutionary models:
http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/bigbang
Quote from: the article
While most people think of the big bang as an explosion in space, scientists use the term to describe the beginning of space, time, matter and energy. The Bible describes a few key characteristics of the universe that scientists now have the ability to measure. At least five biblical writers describe an expanding universe (e.g. Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1). Scripture also talks about the constantancy of the laws of physics, most explicitly stated in Jeremiah 33:25. Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3 declare that the universe began to exist (thus required a Beginner). Romans 8:18-21 speaks of a pervasive law of decay. These four characteristics—a singular beginning, cosmic expansion, and constant laws of physics including the law of decay—define a big bang universe. The Bible leaves many details such as the expansion rate and the strengths of the laws for us to measure. This correspondence between the biblical description of the universe, authored thousands of years ago, and the best scientific understanding of the universe provides strong evidence for supernatural inspiration of the words of the Bible.
much more information at the link above
Futilitist
- Prisoners
- Chatty
- Posts: 177
Note: This message is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Ashvin,
Rene Girard says that men have corrupted and kept hidden the true word of God since the dawn of civilization. He says that the clues are still visible in the Bible. Frankly, I just took his word for this up to now. But when I was looking up the various Bible references you listed above, I was surprised to find this:
Romans 8:18-21
English Standard Version (ESV)
Future Glory
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.Rene Girard is right!
I don't see any pervasive law of decay (i.e. entropy) in this quotation. I do see an interesting reference to "futility", though. It seems we are never willing participants in futility. We must be forced to even look at it head on. But the quote seems to imply a substantial reward for doing so. "Bondage to corruption" refers to the scapegoat mechanism from which we must be set free in order to "obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God". This is the true path to redemption. It is available to all.
The search for utility in futility = Futilitism.
---futilitist's ghost
Ashvin
- Thinker
- Posts: 409
Futilitist,
So you do believe in some type of God or not? You said you were an atheist, but you constantly reference people who are not as support for your arguments.
Re: the passage in Romans - Paul refers to the entire creation being subjected to futility by God. In verse 22, he says "we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time". It is rather clear, then, that he is not talking about just humans or the Fall, but rather when God created the Universe at the very beginning of time.
Obviously, people back then didn't understand the specifics of the 2nd law or the concept of entropy, but the Holy Spirit still guided them to capture the essence of the process. There are many problems with your explanations - the main one being that Paul makes it clear that the futility of the Universe will not last, but will be overcome. Also, "bondage to corruption" means the physical corruption of everything in the creation, i.e. decay, and the human scapegoat mechanism is just one aspect of that corruption which is more directly related to the Fall (billions of years after the beginning of the Universe).
If you read other passages and works of Paul, of which there is plenty, "the glory that is to be revealed" and "obtaining the freedom of glory of the children of God" clearly refers to the second coming of Christ and the creation of a new Heaven and Earth (as described in Revelation), in which the laws of physics will be completely different, and there will be no entropy or decay. Even if you don't accept my interpretation (which is based on the work of many other Christian scientists), it is 100% certain that there is no way to interpret Paul in an atheistic, naturalistic or materialistic manner.
So you do believe in some type of God or not? You said you were an atheist, but you constantly reference people who are not as support for your arguments.
Re: the passage in Romans - Paul refers to the entire creation being subjected to futility by God. In verse 22, he says "we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time". It is rather clear, then, that he is not talking about just humans or the Fall, but rather when God created the Universe at the very beginning of time.
Obviously, people back then didn't understand the specifics of the 2nd law or the concept of entropy, but the Holy Spirit still guided them to capture the essence of the process. There are many problems with your explanations - the main one being that Paul makes it clear that the futility of the Universe will not last, but will be overcome. Also, "bondage to corruption" means the physical corruption of everything in the creation, i.e. decay, and the human scapegoat mechanism is just one aspect of that corruption which is more directly related to the Fall (billions of years after the beginning of the Universe).
If you read other passages and works of Paul, of which there is plenty, "the glory that is to be revealed" and "obtaining the freedom of glory of the children of God" clearly refers to the second coming of Christ and the creation of a new Heaven and Earth (as described in Revelation), in which the laws of physics will be completely different, and there will be no entropy or decay. Even if you don't accept my interpretation (which is based on the work of many other Christian scientists), it is 100% certain that there is no way to interpret Paul in an atheistic, naturalistic or materialistic manner.
Futilitist
- Prisoners
- Chatty
- Posts: 178
Note: This message is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Quote from: Ashvin
Quote from: Ashvin
So you do believe in some type of God or not?I personally believe in no god or gods, whatsoever. I am what is termed a hard atheist. But I know a great deal about your God and, most importantly, about your personal savior, the godman, Jesus Christ. I am very well versed in your new testament. I have studied the Pauline epistles and the four gospels quite extensively. I did a lot of research into the historicity of Jesus, and I read three scholarly works on the subject. I can trace the writing of the gospels, comparing the copying and editing of these works even with reference to lost documents such as the Q document, which help to set real dates in actual history for the gospels themselves. The Pauline epistles are notable for their complete absence of any reference to an Earthly Jesus, etc.
Quote from: Ashvin
You said you were an atheist, but you constantly reference people who are not as support for your arguments.That kind of resonant agreement from vastly different viewpoints is what Edward O. Wilson calls "consilience". Consilience reveals a higher truth than can be had from any single perspective alone. Pretty cool, huh? Also, I know it confounds you a bit to have me take such a seemingly weird, quasi-religious stance. I really like playing with religious symbolism, as I am sure you've noticed by now. There is a lot to be gained through the understanding of the power of myth to affect people.
Quote from: Ashvin
Re: the passage in Romans - Paul refers to the entire creation being subjected to futility by God. In verse 22, he says "we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time". It is rather clear, then, that he is not talking about just humans or the Fall, but rather when God created the Universe at the very beginning of time.I don't agree with your interpretation of this particular passage, but it is not important to my argument.
Quote from: Ashvin
Obviously, people back then didn't understand the specifics of the 2nd law or the concept of entropy, but the Holy Spirit still guided them to capture the essence of the process. There are many problems with your explanations - the main one being that Paul makes it clear that the futility of the Universe will not last, but will be overcome.I don't think that the entropy of the universe was of much concern to people back then. Even today, the concept of entropy is not widely appreciated or even understood, outside of the world of physicists. You can't feel entropy. It does not happen at a human level. Nobody cares. But the scapegoat mechanism on the other hand...
Quote from: Ashvin
Also, "bondage to corruption" means the physical corruption of everything in the creation, i.e. decay, and the human scapegoat mechanism is just one aspect of that corruption which is more directly related to the Fall (billions of years after the beginning of the Universe).So you agree that the scapegoat mechanism is at least one aspect of "bondage to corruption"? Good start. I'm saying it is the most important one. But keep in mind that this is just one of many passages, and my main argument does not rest on bible quotes anyway. But this is fun.
Quote from: Ashvin
If you read other passages and works of Paul, of which there is plenty, "the glory that is to be revealed" and "obtaining the freedom of glory of the children of God" clearly refers to the second coming of Christ and the creation of a new Heaven and Earth (as described in Revelation), in which the laws of physics will be completely different, and there will be no entropy or decay. Even if you don't accept my interpretation (which is based on the work of many other Christian scientists), it is 100% certain that there is no way to interpret Paul in an atheistic, naturalistic or materialistic manner.Are you sure? You haven't heard my entire argument yet. It is not about Paul. This is just a side argument loop.
Ashvin, I intend to present a scientific and philosophic argument to make my case. In the process, I will introduce you to a deeper and more meaningful Christianity, and the true path to redemption. Your Christianity is a hoax that was perpetrated as a means of control almost 2000 years ago, and you swallow it hook, line, and sinker. It is a complete perversion of the original message of your mythical godman. He did not endorse any power structure. He was an absolute pain in the ass, and his message was not an easy one to swallow. He was the ultimate dominant paradigm subverter! He was a big time Futilitist, but not the first. He was also an earnest, barefooted, rag wearing, Aspergers autistic with a co-morbid oppositional defiant personality disorder, and a classic, overbearing Jewish mother, who is duped by 12 disciples into "leading" them in their political struggles with the Romans! He is an idiot who pays for this mistake with his life. I will get into this in much greater detail next time. I think you will find all of this to be a very different argument than you are used to having. You will not score points using the same canned psuedo-physics arguments from a pamphlet handed to me by a bible thumping wacko on the Santa Monica pier in 1986. And please don't mention Micheal Behe and irreducible complexity again. Think for yourself.
---futilitist's ghost
Futilitist,
You have all the clever, presumptuous rhetoric of someone like Christopher Hitchens, and all of the lack of substance as well. I'm not going to respond to anything you said... I will patiently await your historical, scientific and philosophical arguments that "destroy" the divinity of Christ and the spiritual truths of the Bible.
Just to let you know, though, your "I have studied Christianity backwards and forwards" argument is nothing new. Bart Ehrman makes similar arguments, and, indeed, he has studied the Bible in great depth. That doesn't change the fact that he is absolutely wrong, though.
String theorists and multiverse proponents have studied theoretical physics in great depth too, but that doesn't earn them any brownie points when they present their arguments to the scientific community in their attempts to establish the TRUTH. So I hope you actually have something logical and credible to offer, rather than more rhetoric that I can hear by listening to debates between Obama and Romney.
You have all the clever, presumptuous rhetoric of someone like Christopher Hitchens, and all of the lack of substance as well. I'm not going to respond to anything you said... I will patiently await your historical, scientific and philosophical arguments that "destroy" the divinity of Christ and the spiritual truths of the Bible.
Just to let you know, though, your "I have studied Christianity backwards and forwards" argument is nothing new. Bart Ehrman makes similar arguments, and, indeed, he has studied the Bible in great depth. That doesn't change the fact that he is absolutely wrong, though.
String theorists and multiverse proponents have studied theoretical physics in great depth too, but that doesn't earn them any brownie points when they present their arguments to the scientific community in their attempts to establish the TRUTH. So I hope you actually have something logical and credible to offer, rather than more rhetoric that I can hear by listening to debates between Obama and Romney.
Note: This message is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Criticisms
Ashvin
- Thinker
- Posts: 453
Futilitist,
I understand the basics of mimetic theory, I listed to the two-part interview with Michael Hardin you shared and I agree with just about everything he says. Obviously, the same can't be said for you, because you are an atheist and he is an evangelical Christian.
In contrast to the attention I have paid to your suggestions and links, I can't imagine you have spent more than few moments considering what I have provided you. If you had, you would know that I place supreme importance on the Old Testament and the Hebrew/Jewish culture as the essential spiritual foundation for Christianity. Without the former, neither Jesus the Christ nor Christianity makes any sense.
In fact, the point of my website, "Picturing Christ", is to primarily show how every essential aspect of Christianity and the Gospel message is found in the history and the theology of the OT (among many other places), including the Golden Rule. So, trust me, I don't need any lessons from you on that...
No, it is you who were ignoring the Golden Rule in that thread, both old and new. You were attacking Karpatok and others in a very irrational and disrespectful manner, leaving no room for rational discourse, and that is not how you would want to be treated by them, or how they would want to treat themselves. I simply presented a rational consideration of antisemitism from a Christian perspective, and you attacked me for it too, so I tried to gently remind you that you were causing more harm than good with your hateful attitude.
My evangelism towards you is not in any way, shape or form contrary to the GR. If the eternal state of my soul rested in the exclusive truth of our Lord Christ, I would want someone to preach that to me and convince me of that truth (and that's exactly what I did for myself about a year ago). I can shower you with NT quotations that support this position, but I'm sure you are well aware that I am correct here, so there is no need for that. The last thing that Christ tells His apostles is to go out and make disciples of all the nations, and I take that commission very seriously. It is the entire point of God's Messianic promise through the nation of Israel and Christ's atonement on the Cross.
I'm not sure what Rene Girard would think about my specific beliefs and approach to Christianity, but I'm quite confident that a) what he would think is irrelevant to the truth and b) that he would intellectually appreciate my philosophical beliefs A LOT more than your atheism and futilitism.
I understand the basics of mimetic theory, I listed to the two-part interview with Michael Hardin you shared and I agree with just about everything he says. Obviously, the same can't be said for you, because you are an atheist and he is an evangelical Christian.
In contrast to the attention I have paid to your suggestions and links, I can't imagine you have spent more than few moments considering what I have provided you. If you had, you would know that I place supreme importance on the Old Testament and the Hebrew/Jewish culture as the essential spiritual foundation for Christianity. Without the former, neither Jesus the Christ nor Christianity makes any sense.
In fact, the point of my website, "Picturing Christ", is to primarily show how every essential aspect of Christianity and the Gospel message is found in the history and the theology of the OT (among many other places), including the Golden Rule. So, trust me, I don't need any lessons from you on that...
Quote from Futilitist:
In this exchange you revealed that you completely misunderstood my good intentions toward you. I was trying to warn you, in what I thought were your own best interests. I was respectfully, and later more forcefully, suggesting that the brush that I was attempting to paint others with on that particular thread was not one with which you might have wished to be painted. That discussion was not a general religious discussion of antisemitism. It was a very specific and accusatory one. I was quite surprised at your tone deafness to this, and your continued insistence on being heard. Thus, still in kindness, I warned you off with force. I think I did you a big favor. I was applying my atheistic Golden Rule toward you.
In return you reply as if in anger and you offer to proselytize at me. Your blessing sounds to me as a curse. You tell me that I need to accept Jesus Christ as a personal savior, yet you know that I am a Jew, an atheist, and a Futilitist. You are hurling a blessing at me that to my ears is an insult. This is a very poor example of the Golden Rule. You call yourself a Christian yet your attitude is not just holier than thou, it is even holier than mine!
I don't mean to bring up old stuff here, but I thought this example might help you understand just one of the many reasons that I say that your particular form of Christianity lacks the depth in it's ethics and morals that atheism has in spades. It also, more profoundly, lacks a true path to redemption, which I say is for all, and you say is just for you and your special group of Jesus believers.
Rene Girard would look down his French intellectual nose at you, and, perhaps, would say that your particular spirituality was a very primitive and immature form. He might also say that God expects much more out of you. But I wouldn't want to put words in his French intellectual mouth.
No, it is you who were ignoring the Golden Rule in that thread, both old and new. You were attacking Karpatok and others in a very irrational and disrespectful manner, leaving no room for rational discourse, and that is not how you would want to be treated by them, or how they would want to treat themselves. I simply presented a rational consideration of antisemitism from a Christian perspective, and you attacked me for it too, so I tried to gently remind you that you were causing more harm than good with your hateful attitude.
My evangelism towards you is not in any way, shape or form contrary to the GR. If the eternal state of my soul rested in the exclusive truth of our Lord Christ, I would want someone to preach that to me and convince me of that truth (and that's exactly what I did for myself about a year ago). I can shower you with NT quotations that support this position, but I'm sure you are well aware that I am correct here, so there is no need for that. The last thing that Christ tells His apostles is to go out and make disciples of all the nations, and I take that commission very seriously. It is the entire point of God's Messianic promise through the nation of Israel and Christ's atonement on the Cross.
I'm not sure what Rene Girard would think about my specific beliefs and approach to Christianity, but I'm quite confident that a) what he would think is irrelevant to the truth and b) that he would intellectually appreciate my philosophical beliefs A LOT more than your atheism and futilitism.
« Last Edit: Today at 05:06:53 PM by Ashvin »
Ashvin
- Thinker
- Posts: 453
I don't think that the entropy of the universe was of much concern to people back then. Even today, the concept of entropy is not widely appreciated or even understood, outside of the world of physicists. You can't feel entropy. It does not happen at a human level. Nobody cares. But the scapegoat mechanism on the other hand...
I missed this before, but just wanted to point out that it is not true. Everyone experiences entropy... it is one of the most obvious experiences of our lives. Your room or office has a natural tendency to go from being clean to messy, and your physical components have a tendency to go from being strong to weak. There are, of course, many more common examples of entropy. The profound thing about the Biblical references to entropy is not just that they recognized the law existed, but that they recognized it existed from the very beginning of the Universe (and that there was a beginning to the Universe). That is something that scientists have established with mathematical certainty only recently, and it helps explain how the Universe could have developed the way it did, allowing for complex forms of life, and also how the material Universe will predictably have an end (also predicted by the Bible).
Anyway, your basic review of mimetic theory does not come close to living up to your promise of a deep scientific and philosophical argument in favor of viewing Christianity from an atheist perspective. In fact, if anything, it has made your argument even worse and strengthened mine. It is only God who would have the wisdom to use the reality of mimetics, scapegoating and everything else involved in human behavioral psychology to our own ultimate advantage and to His own glory. It is only He who could have known all of this thousands of years ago, and predicted exactly how humanity would develop and respond to undeniably spiritual (anti-atheist) message of Christ. It is only God who can release humanity from its sinful state of physical and mental depravity, and lead us to righteous perfection.
Golden Oxen
- Global Moderator
- Pundit
- Posts: 905
Ashvin, I just wanted to let you know that it has really saddened me to see the shabby, disrespectful, callous treatment you have received at the DD lately.
Placing a muzzle on and threatening a member of your stature with banishment is a disgrace, as well as being very demoralizing to myself and others that find your contributions to be most valuable and well intentioned. GO
Placing a muzzle on and threatening a member of your stature with banishment is a disgrace, as well as being very demoralizing to myself and others that find your contributions to be most valuable and well intentioned. GO
Ashvin
- Thinker
- Posts: 453
Ashvin, I just wanted to let you know that it has really saddened me to see the shabby, disrespectful, callous treatment you have received at the DD lately.
Placing a muzzle on and threatening a member of your stature with banishment is a disgrace, as well as being very demoralizing to myself and others that find your contributions to be most valuable and well intentioned. GO
GO,
Thanks for the support and compliments... you have been very gracious to me here. Given RE's decision to censor me for simply answering questions about the Bible, I think I will focus much more time on visiting Christian forums and trying to get people to visit and participate at the PC forum. I have come to realize that, although evangelizing to non-Christians is very important, dialogue between Christians can be equally important and much more productive towards serving God's will, since there is much more common ground and people are more receptive to learning and growing in their faith.
So, I hope you, Ka, Futilitist and any others who want to talk about spirituality, the Bible, Christianity and all things related to Christ (which is everything, IMO) will also join me at the PC forum and we can continue our discussions and/or debates. There will be sections for all different religions, and also for discussing the blog posts that I write or guest posts. I'll try to plug PC the best I can at other Christian forums in order to get more people involved as well. Thanks again.
« Last Edit: Today at 08:07:37 PM by Ashvin »
Chloe
- Chatty
- Posts: 75
RE, you have been warned ...!
Ashvin, I'd guess that most of us see that for the disingenous cop-out it actually is ...
Quote from Ashvin:
Given RE's decision to censor me for simply answering questions about the Bible,
Ashvin, I'd guess that most of us see that for the disingenous cop-out it actually is ...
Futilitist
- Prisoners
- Chatty
- Posts: 180
Note: This message is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Ashvin,
OK, that's it, I've had it with you!
Quote from: Ashvin putting words in my mouth
I understand the basics of mimetic theory, I listed to the two-part interview with Michael Hardin you shared and I agree with just about everything he says. Obviously, the same can't be said for you, because you are an atheist and he is an evangelical Christian.I need you to retract this statement and apologise to me! This is the most intellectually dishonest thing I have ever encountered since coming here. You know full well that I never "shared" a "two-part interview with Michael Hardin"! I don't even know who he is! I spent some time looking through the wiki on Rene Girard, and after much searching, toward the very bottom of the page, I found a link to Michael Hardin's webpage. I pointed you at a wiki for Rene Girard, and you try to pull a fast one, suggesting that my ideas are in agreement with some evangelical christian I have never ever head of. I don't check every link on a wiki page to see if I am in full agreement with everything presented. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. If I wasn't locked in a Dungeon under the Outhouse, I would take your childish, irrelevant, distracting, intellectually dishonest ass into the Smokehouse and roast you to a crisp. The concensus opinion about you on this website, reflected in RE's actions toward you, despite Golden Oxen's protestations to the contrary, is 100% accurate. I can't believe I misjudged you so completely all along. You are obviously an intellectual lightweight of the lowest order. You are a completely delusional jesus freak, totally impossible to reason with. Essentially you are a child. Forgive my intrusion onto your religious wacko thread. I can't believe I wasted my one post a day on the likes of you!
And you clearly do not understand mimetic theory. Or physics. You are just *WAY* out of your league.
The above is how you deserve to be treated, so don't even bother to whine. You have shown me no respect whatsoever, and I am mimetically paying you back. Below, just for a counter example, I will show you a different tack. Positive mimetics in action:
I attempted, just for the hell of it, to post links to my blog on the Green Wizards website. I made a post under cool stuff to read while John Michael Greer was on vacation from his blog! Hopefully everyone here knows by now that I am highly critical of JMG and one of the links I posted was to an indictment of him. In it, I charge JMG with being a charlatan! The moderator pulled my post and sent me this message which leads to a very respectful discussion between bitter rivals. Though in the end, she and I must obviously agree to disagree, this is a model of how people should treat each other in reasoned disagreements. I think she and I both came away better for having had this impromptu exchange.
From Green Wizards:
Quote from: Participants: Cathy McGuire and Futilitist
Cathy McGuire
10/01/2012 - 20:59
Hey, dude -
Your promoting of your blog as the thing to read while JMG is gone does not pass our "spam" sniff test. If you want to contribute, try giving some comments that do not rely on self-promotion. Your blog post will not be published, and we'll wait to see if you do more self-promotion...
Futilitist
10/01/2012 - 22:56
10/01/2012 - 22:56
Hello Cathy,
I won't try to post any more links to my own blog. That is fair.
What did you think of my blog? It is highly critical of JMG. I know you took a look at it before rejecting my post, because blogspot lets me track each hit to my blog. I would like to hear your opinion, if you don't mind. Thanks.
---Futilitist
Cathy McGuire
10/02/2012 - 09:22
Honestly? It was so fragmented that I feared it was in fact a malware trap. So if you honestly want readers, you probably need to look at other blogs and learn to write in a linear manner. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course. Thanks for at least replying to ensure I didn't think you were a spambot (they have gotten quite sophisticated these days.)
Futilitist
10/03/2012 - 03:25
Cathy,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You must have looked at "The Cat in John Michael Greer's Kitchen". You are correct. It is a mess, reconstructed from Oil Drum fragments. But the second one, called "Let's Get Real" is an indictment of JMG for being a Charlatan. It is pretty well written. I would love to hear what you think of that one, as a Greer fan. I mean this quite seriously. This is not a trick. If you have time to read it and answer me, I would be most grateful. You could answer me here or on my blog comments, whichever you prefer. Thank you once again.
---Futilitist
Cathy McGuire
10/03/2012 - 09:01
Perhaps you are sincere in your comments, yet your logic seems faulty and thus your conclusions are questionable. I don't want to get into a long argument, but let me say that you are overlooking or missing the point that JMG goes into the details of catabolic collapse in detail in his books - which is why he doesn't want to (and shouldn't need to) do it all again every week in his blog. The blog was meant as a "moving forward" and discussion forum for those who have read his work and want to discuss it. He has given many interviews where he answers the kinds of questions you pose (see the bibliography that is posted elsewhere on greenwizards). Sometimes the "nuf said" can be abrupt, but I personally appreciate the tight rein on discussions that wander or get repetitive - I read The Oil Drum a lot, but they get into long arguments that really should be reined in, IMO.
A charlatan is someone who does not believe what he/she is saying; someone with a hidden agenda. I do not see that in any way with JMG. You might not agree with his point of view, but he is honest and sincere about expressing it.
I have majored in philosophy and taken logic courses, so am familiar with the various fallacies. I accept that a person's personality can be relevant to a discussion, but you have not in any way proved your assertion in this case, that because JMG didn't want you to be rude and provocative (those are your own words) on his blog, he is deceptive or any kind of "snake oil salesman".
So that is my feedback. One thing I've learned over the years - we all need to remember the difference between being heard and being agreed with. Someone can hear your point and not be moved by it - that's not the same as refusing to hear it. Hope this helps.
Futilitist
10/05/2012 - 22:58
Cathy,
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I also don't want to get into a long argument. But I would like to clear up a couple of miss-impressions you seem have about my disagreement with Greer.
I completely agree that he has every legitimate right to do anything he wants on his own blog. I have never had a discussion with him on his blog. I have only spoken with him the one time on theoildrum. The person who was talking about posting comments on Greer's blog was mainly ghung. So I think your paragraphs one and three are essentially straw men.
But this is more on point:
A charlatan is someone who does not believe what he/she is saying; someone with a hidden agenda. I do not see that in any way with JMG. You might not agree with his point of view, but he is honest and sincere about expressing it.
I may write a slight retraction of the strong charlatan charge that I made. I study social theory, and motive and intent are very difficult issues to grapple with. Upon reflection, I have come to believe, as you say, that Greer is sincere in his beliefs.
I believe that Greer's ideas concerning "slow collapse" are a kind of shared delusion that makes an apocalypse seem more manageable and a lot less frightening to a lot of people. And it is quite appealing. But a catabolic collapse, as described by JMG, simply has no logical or scientific basis, whatsoever. It is more wishful thinking than forecasting. Collapse is a rapid nonlinear phase change, or state jump, in systems dynamics terms. Nature abhors an energy gradient. There is no such thing as a "slow" collapse. Collapse is rapid by definition.
---Futilitist
Cathy McGuire
10/06/2012 - 08:47
10/06/2012 - 08:47
Okay - so you disagree with his projection that collapse will be (is currently) slow and progressive. And you say he has the right to say whatever on his blog. So I really don't see what you were attacking him about in your blog. If you disagree, and believe collapse will be sudden and violent (and many share your view), I'd say it's better to make your points to your readers rather than critiquing his. As JMG says, dissensus may be the best path for humanity - that way, some of us may make it through the bottleneck. :-}
Futilitist
10/06/2012 - 12:10
Cathy,
I attempted to raise the question with Greer on TOD. When I did, all hell broke loose. I was viciously attacked by Greer supporters. Greer himself referred to me as a cat taking a bowel movement on his kitchen floor! I was then permanently banned from TOD after 6 years of comments without so much as a warning ever before. I prefer honest and open debate. I am enjoying our honest and open interaction, here. Thank you.
---Futilitist
Thanks again, Cathy.
Ashvin,
Good luck with your Picturing Christ bullshit. I hope it works out for you. Please do not reply to this post. We are finished with this discussion.
---futilitist's ghost
Report to moderator 108.235.164.165
RE and company have apparently had enough of Ashvin's religious nuttery on every thread. In preparation for his upcoming Final Solution, RE now labeles Ashvin as a Yellow Psycho. I'm feeling real bad for beating up on Ashvin myself, not.
Ashvin
108.235.164.165 RE and company have apparently had enough of Ashvin's religious nuttery on every thread. In preparation for his upcoming Final Solution, RE now labeles Ashvin as a Yellow Psycho. I'm feeling real bad for beating up on Ashvin myself, not.
Ashvin - Yellow Psycho
- Thinker
- Posts: 457
Sorry, Futilitist, you are right - it was a much more stable person who directed me to Michael Hardin, not you.
I do like Girard, and his theory can be a great tool for evangelical Christians to convert the skeptics:
Good luck to you, as well...
Rene Girard, developer of the Mimetic Theory, has said that Michael is “a gifted and effective advocate who is able to make the Mimetic Theory and its application clear and understandable”.
I do like Girard, and his theory can be a great tool for evangelical Christians to convert the skeptics:
Interview with Rene Girard
GK: How do you think of your work as apologetic?
RG: I think the most influential aspect of my work is to show that Judaism and Christianity exist in a continuity with archaic religions. I am fundamentally an anthropologist and a rationalist. What I say is that human societies are very different from what specialists call “animal society” because the former have religion. In archaic society religion and culture are absolutely one, even when they don’t seem to be. Religion, therefore, is a way that human beings learn, without realizing it, how to deal with violence in their midst. Here, sacrifice comes in as the killing of substitute victims. This phenomenon as a scientific entity should be explained in purely anthropological terms. It takes no religious conviction to be understood. It is a complete revolution in the way that even people unfavorable to religion understand archaic religion; to show that they are absolutely indispensable to the survival of man is a very important thing.
In a way, Christianity is the end of archaic religions because it reveals that the victim is innocent. When you understand Christianity correctly in its closeness and distance from archaic religion it is the same structure, the scapegoat phenomenon, that Jesus is victim of. Yet the text is intended to destroy your belief in scapegoat phenomenon instead of using it in order to have sacrifices. The relationship is very central and rational with all archaic religions in the past that may go back tens of thousands of years. This is very important.
The religion of the Incarnation should be an anthropology as well as a theology. Incarnation means man and God together. Theology is pure God and is built on schemes that completely neglect what we call Incarnation in Christianity.
Good luck to you, as well...
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 08:14:39 AM by Ashvin »
At this point, I find that I have suddenly been released from almost a month in "Solitary Confinement" in RE's specially built Futilitist "Dungeon" beneath the "Outhouse". It feels good to have my posting privileges back, but I can't help but notice that my designation has gone from Prisoner to Yellow Psycho, the same designation as the religious wacko, Ashvin. I don't think this is very fair, but I go along for now.
Futilitist
- Yellow Psycho
- Chatty
- Posts: 181
We are all prisoners in a concentration camp.
It is called civilization.
We cannot escape it. It follows us everywhere we go, every day, every moment of our lives. We are it's perpetual victims. The gate at Auschwitz carries the bullshit admonition that work will make you free. What is capitalism?
---Futilitist's ghost
Ka
- Chatty
- Posts: 69
I haven't begun to talk about one of the most important ideas of Futilitism, an idea I refer to as the central futility of the human condition. It is called "The Dark Thesis". It is the greatest social taboo that exists. And even though it is not actually invisible, and, in fact, is hidden in plain sight, it has never been widely understood, let alone accepted.
It looks to me like your Dark Thesis is something that has always been known to religions, at their core. Christians call it Original Sin, Vedantists call it Maya (illusion, or I think better, delusion), Buddhists call it avidya (ignorance). I think of it as Basic Insanity -- we are out of touch with supernatural reality.
Please note the qualification "religions, at their core". Of course most practitioners of these religions are just as much in denial over their Basic Insanity as the non-religious. But the core is there. And there are two basic responses posed to this Basic Insanity. One is love (or compassion), and the other is reason (though in practice, both). Of course, reason in this case only works if one accepts the basic premise: that our insanity consists of being out of touch with supernatural reality. But one can also use reason to investigate that premise, to evaluate it as well as its negation, to work out which seems more plausible. I find the premise more plausible than its negation, so I have hope. From what you have said previously, it appears that you have found the negation more plausible, hence futility. Which is to say, that it looks like your Dark Thesis depends on an assumption that may be unwarranted.
Futilitist
- Yellow Psycho
- Chatty
- Posts: 182
« Last Edit: Today at 11:41:46 PM by Futilitist »
RE
- Administrator
- Gunslinger
- Posts: 2564
PS---Thanks RE. Feels good to be back. I am all about CFS these days. I won't let you down. Perhaps on another thread you might indulge me telling my personal story of my jailhouse conversion and rehabilitation. My cross comparisons of the blatant hypocrisy ramant on various other discussion forums lead me right back to my original endorsement of the Doomstead Diner as the only haven of truly free speech on the internet!
There is no such thing as a Fight2Quality. Quality is not 2 be found somewhere else, it must be made where you are. Hat's off to you, RE.
Thanks FT. Doing my best to run a very difficult show overall. With better software I could do an even better and more fair job, but alas I am not a Code Jockey who can modify the underlying code of a Forum like this, even though it is Open Source. So I am doing what I can with the available tools without having to Ban or Censor anyone entirely, though I can of course make it quite difficult for anybody who gives me headaches to keep giving me headaches. LOL.
If I could, I would create alternate Indexing Diners could select at will to custom create a Recent Comments Index of just the stuff they are interested in reading. This would eliminate just about all the problems of Channel Stuffing a prolific Troll will engage in and make unecessary these klugdes of restricted boards. I have written to the SMF Jockeys suggesting this, but heard back nothing.
Anyhow, this last post is quite good and right to topic, so you seem to be on the right track and Rehabbed pretty well during your stay in the Dungeon.
You are welcome to write your Rehab Story of course, and if it is real good it might even go up on the Diner Blog. You still do have a Byline there. RE
And this is where the story ended, or so I thought. I kindly gave RE the last word, and publshed the original "Picturing Ashvin's Redemption" here at blogspot. Later events, however, will soon force a significant editorial change resulting in the the full title: "Picturing Ashvin's Redemption - Fairwell DD". This is a total surprize ending for me. It probably shouldn't have been.
Ashvin
- Yellow Psycho
- Thinker
- Posts: 459
Sin is the first cause. Maybe that's why it is refered to as "original".
This is the proper sequence:
1. Sin produces Guilt.
2. Guilt produces Religion.
3. Religion brings absolution from Sin.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Religion is an expression of man, the tool maker. And religion has proven to be a highly effective tool, much more important to our species than the wheel. It functions to help us feel that we have dealt with something important, so that we can actually avoid dealing with it, and just carry on as before. It simply validates behaviors that are distasteful, yet unavoidable to all social animals. It helps us relieve the extreme cognitive dissonance necessarily produced by everyday life.
A naturalist cannot resort to "sin" as the first cause of anything, because sin only has meaning in the context of objective moral values. Religion develops as a recognition of our innate conscious awareness of morality and natural order/design. The naturalist tries to avoid to profound implications and responsibilities associated with that recognition by reducing the spirituality, religion, morality, etc. to mindlessly evolved impulses.
Quote from: Futilitist
We are all born with a basic moral instinct. But what we call "morality" is a very different thing, separate and distinct from the "moral instinct". Morality grows out of the moral instinct, but it is really just another social tool, with a very specific function. Here is how I like to say it:
Morality makes indignation righteous. Righteous indignation justifies violence. Thus morality simply creates a prophylactic pre-absolution from sin. And that brings us back to the Scapegoat.
Quote from: Steven PinkerJoshua Greene, a philosopher and cognitive neuroscientist, suggests that evolution equipped people with a revulsion to manhandling an innocent person. This instinct, he suggests, tends to overwhelm any utilitarian calculus that would tot up the lives saved and lost. The impulse against roughing up a fellow human would explain other examples in which people abjure killing one to save many, like euthanizing a hospital patient to harvest his organs and save five dying patients in need of transplants, or throwing someone out of a crowded lifeboat to keep it afloat.
Evolution as the driving mechanism for innate morality in human beings is absurd. Neo-Darwinian theory can't even explain the evolution of humans in the first place, let alone our "moral instinct". It's amusing how atheists just throw statements like that in there ("evolution equipped people") without explaining any of the evolutionary mechanisms or pathways that can sufficiently explain such a development.
Morality defines sin and evil - they are mutually dependent concepts - so it cannot possibly create a "prophylactic pre-absolution" from sin, sophistry notwithstanding.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/does-human-morality-arise-from-brain-chemistry
Quote from: the article
Does Brain Chemistry Define Morality?
Even though the study seems to undermine the Christian worldview, the results of the research do not necessarily support the notion that brain chemistry alone dictates morality. Rather, the study shows that brain chemicals merely modulate morality. The observation that highly empathetic individuals were more responsive to elevated serotonin levels is significant. This observation indicates that “serotonin modulates empathetic response to harm—i.e., by boosting an already-present neural signal—rather than being the source of the empathetic response.” 2
In other words, the brain appears to be hardwired for moral judgment with serotonin influencing the responsiveness of an intrinsically moral brain. This result comports with the Christian worldview and the words Paul wrote in Romans 2:14–15, which teach that all human beings have God’s Law “written on their hearts.”
A Christian Brain Science Model
If the appropriate mind-body model is adopted, then the Christian framework can readily accommodate the ability to influence moral judgment and behavior through the use of brain chemicals like serotonin or through magnetic fields (see the article I wrote for the e-Zine New Reasons to Believe3).
The model I favor employs a computer hardware/software analogy. Accordingly, the brain is the hardware that manifests human spirituality and the image of God. Meanwhile, the image of God itself is analogous to the software programming. According to this model, hardware structures—brain regions—support the expression of the various aspects of God’s image, such as moral judgment. Brain chemicals are the means to mediate the communication between neurons and, ultimately, the different brain regions. However, brain structures and biochemistry are not the source of moral judgments. Instead they are part of the physical apparatus and operations that make the expression of moral judgments possible.
If the hardware of a computer doesn’t function properly, the software, though it may be fully intact, cannot work either. In like manner, the brain can be altered, influencing how the image of God is expressed. In this way, increasing or decreasing serotonin levels may impact one’s sensitivity to inflicting harm, but serotonin is not responsible for creating the ideal that causing harm is wrong.
This model also suggests a way that the Holy Spirit could operate to influence our behavior: through the serotonin levels in our brain. It is interesting that the researchers noted that “after citalopram, subjects were less likely to advocate harming an innocent bystander and more likely to ‘turn the other cheek’ and forgive unfair behavior.”
Ka
- Chatty
- Posts: 71
And Hollywood gave us the "Matrix" and Pink Floyd welcomed us to the "Machine". The only part of your statement above that I must take exception with is the characterization that this has "always been known" to religions (at their core or otherwise). Religions, movies, and songs don't know, they only vaguely suggest. They stimulate an emotional and not an intellectual response. They enjoin us to feel, or sense something, not to know it.
They (religions) know, as you do, about the basic wrongness of humanity. But yes, their diagnosis (being cut off from supernatural reality), and hence solutions, are not generally agreed upon.
Quote from: Futilitist
Religion does not spring from nowhere to help us resolve these difficult, eternal questions. Religion itself cannot explain sin, since it is born of it.
Sin is the first cause. Maybe that's why it is refered to as "original".
This is the proper sequence:
1. Sin produces Guilt.
2. Guilt produces Religion.
3. Religion brings absolution from Sin.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Well, one might view Christianity in this way if you are a materialist Darwinian evolutionist (MDE), but in any case, this is not true of religion in general. Buddhism, for example, goes deeply into the cause of our bad behavior (briefly, egoic attachment, a consequence of an erroneous view of the self), and so provides a method for a cure (in brief, the Eightfold Path). Guilt, in this scheme, is just another symptom of attachment. (I am not, or not entirely, a Buddhist, by the way. But I do think they have the better diagnosis of our basic insanity).
Quote from: Futilitist
Religion is an expression of man, the tool maker. And religion has proven to be a highly effective tool, much more important to our species than the wheel. It functions to help us feel that we have dealt with something important, so that we can actually avoid dealing with it, and just carry on as before. It simply validates behaviors that are distasteful, yet unavoidable to all social animals. It helps us relieve the extreme cognitive dissonance necessarily produced by everyday life.
This (and most of the rest of your comment) is the viewpoint of a MDE, but the question I raised is whether one should examine the basic wrongness of humanity from such a viewpoint. And, what you say is not true of the core of religions. Anyone who considers their religion to be comforting, or as a means to avoid dealing with their wrongness, or sees their distasteful behavior validated, does not understand their own religion at its core (and there are many such).
Quote from: Futilitist
This line of reasoning seems to be more about the proper response to what we might learn after we have looked deeply into the futility of our lot. What if it is true? What if it is false? These questions are premature. I am not ready to respond to the results of this intellectual inquiry until the results are fully in.
I'm not sure what questions you regard as being premature. Is it true that our lot is futile? The answer is "no" if one is a religionist. The answer is "still working on it" (I think you are saying) if one is a MDE. On the other hand, the religionist does say that our lot is futile if we are going to depend on our own will-power to set things right (though what this means in practice differs between religions).
Futilitist
- Yellow Psycho
- Chatty
- Posts: 183
Ashvin,
I thought we were done.
If, however, you would now like to continue, I only ask that we keep the dialog intellectually honest.
1. You reference the silly little article about the serotonin experiment in order answer the significant evidence summarized in the Steven Pinker article that I offered to bolster my claims. Without even going into why the conclusions drawn in your article are wrong, I will simply state that your article is inadequate to rebut the Pinker article which summarizes the latest research from neuroscience, social psychology, philosophy, social science, and evolutionary biology. These whole fields of academic research are increasingly in agreement with, and comfirming of, many elements of my Dark Thesis. The recent discovery of mirror neurons helps to confirm mimetic theory, for example. Even the experiment (not the stupid article) you reference helps confirm my thesis more than yours. Your answer to me, with respect to the serotonin experiment, simply highlights your poor reasoning skills for all to see.
2. Stop telling me what I need to believe to hold my position.
Quote from: Ashvin
My position is internally consistant. Your position is filled with so many contradictions, irrelevancies, errors of circular reasoning, and deductive, inductive, and retroductive fallacies, that it elicits an extreme sense of futility when attempting a response. Sometimes I just don't know where to begin.
3. More seriously, I would like to get deeper into the basic model I proposed for the evolution of religion. I would like to compare my model with yours. Here is my model again:
1. Sin produces Guilt. (This happens because we posses a moral instinct.)*
2. Guilt produces Religion.
3. Religion brings absolution from Sin.
I contend that number 1 is not controversial. Number 3 is professed by you to be absolutely true. I see it as a nice try, and true for the purposes of this discussion. Thus, both numbers 1 and 3 are commonly agreed to be true, and can, therefore, be taken as given. That only leaves number 2 to be argued.
Here is what you offer to explain number 2 (the origin of religion):
Quote from: Ashvin
My Model
1. Sin produces Guilt.
2. Guilt produces Religion.
3. Religion brings absolution from Sin.
Your Model
1. -?-
2. Religion develops as a recognition of our innate conscious awareness of morality and natural order/design.
3. Religion brings absolution from Sin.
To be complete, your number 1 should explain the origin of innate conscious awareness of morality, as well as the origin of innate conscious awareness of natural order/design. Feel free to break number 1 into as many steps as you think are necessary. You will also need an objective model for determining applicable examples of natural order/design. What is the mechanism for innate conscious awareness? How does your creator being fit in?
*---note:
In order to be a good theory, the Dark Thesis has to explain the origin of the Moral Instinct as well. It does just that, with this key mimetic insight:
If the moral instinct is the root of morality, what is the root of the moral instinct? The elegantly simple answer is fear. Properly speaking, mimetic fear. The roughing up of something that looks like me, produces the real and justifiable fear that it could be me next time around.
The strength of our moral instinct determines what kind of society humans can structure. This is the "Goldy Locks and the porage" principle in evolution:
1. Eewww. This moral instinct is too sweet (i.e. sees bad treatment of brothers and sisters as a bad thing). Another group will evolve a moral instinct that is less moral to take advantage. Though the overly sweet (more moral than Jesus) first group is my personal favorite of the three, they will, nonetheless, die out, along with their goody two shoes attitude.
2. Yuck. This moral instinct is too sour (i.e. sees bad treatment of brothers and sisters as a personal benefit). This disgusting animal will not develop a civilization. The society would self destruct each time the complexity could not rise. If it could avoid self destruction and reach a high enough state of complexity, depending on resources, it could become fascistic enough to resemble a bee hive or an ant hill, with the individual completely subsumed by the group.
3. Mmmmm. This moral instinct is just right (i.e. invents religion to white wash and justify violence). This is the perfect balance that has made the human species so successful that we have bled the planet of it's resources and set in motion our own near term extinction. Yipeee.
Ashvin,
Once you complete your homework assignment, Ill ask you some questions to see if your theory of everything is as good as mine!
And please don't take your offense at my use of the word "homework" above as an excuse for not doing it. That would be intellectually dishonest. "Homework" is just meant as a little joke.
Seriously, unless you can make a legitimate objection as to the form of my challenge, the proper and respectful thing to do is to sincerely attempt it. That way we can compare and contrast our views with real, sharp clarity, for all to see and evaluate. Comparing apples to apples is always the best way, don't you think? WWJD?
---Futilitist
---PS
Everyone,
Please checkout my latest blog post entitled "Picturing Ashvin's Redemption". Hot off the Futilitist press. Here is the link:
http://futilitist.blogspot.com/2012/10/picturing-ashvins-redemption.html
Part 2 to follow? We shall have to wait and see. In the meantime, Enjoy.
I thought we were done.
If, however, you would now like to continue, I only ask that we keep the dialog intellectually honest.
1. You reference the silly little article about the serotonin experiment in order answer the significant evidence summarized in the Steven Pinker article that I offered to bolster my claims. Without even going into why the conclusions drawn in your article are wrong, I will simply state that your article is inadequate to rebut the Pinker article which summarizes the latest research from neuroscience, social psychology, philosophy, social science, and evolutionary biology. These whole fields of academic research are increasingly in agreement with, and comfirming of, many elements of my Dark Thesis. The recent discovery of mirror neurons helps to confirm mimetic theory, for example. Even the experiment (not the stupid article) you reference helps confirm my thesis more than yours. Your answer to me, with respect to the serotonin experiment, simply highlights your poor reasoning skills for all to see.
2. Stop telling me what I need to believe to hold my position.
Quote from: Ashvin
A naturalist cannot resort to "sin" as the first cause of anything, because sin only has meaning in the context of objective moral values.I hope you don't mind if I go ahead and use the word sin in my posts even though you religious guys own the concept! I think we all know what it means.
Quote from: Ashvin
The naturalist tries to avoid to profound implications and responsibilities associated with that recognition by reducing the spirituality, religion, morality, etc. to mindlessly evolved impulses.I offered you the true path to redemption. The path is for god believers and atheists alike. That is *WAY* profound. How do you figure that I am the one who is avoiding profound implications? Seems more like you are.
My position is internally consistant. Your position is filled with so many contradictions, irrelevancies, errors of circular reasoning, and deductive, inductive, and retroductive fallacies, that it elicits an extreme sense of futility when attempting a response. Sometimes I just don't know where to begin.
3. More seriously, I would like to get deeper into the basic model I proposed for the evolution of religion. I would like to compare my model with yours. Here is my model again:
1. Sin produces Guilt. (This happens because we posses a moral instinct.)*
2. Guilt produces Religion.
3. Religion brings absolution from Sin.
I contend that number 1 is not controversial. Number 3 is professed by you to be absolutely true. I see it as a nice try, and true for the purposes of this discussion. Thus, both numbers 1 and 3 are commonly agreed to be true, and can, therefore, be taken as given. That only leaves number 2 to be argued.
Here is what you offer to explain number 2 (the origin of religion):
Quote from: Ashvin
Religion develops as a recognition of our innate conscious awareness of morality and natural order/design.Please complete your full model so that we can make a proper side by side comparison.
My Model
1. Sin produces Guilt.
2. Guilt produces Religion.
3. Religion brings absolution from Sin.
Your Model
1. -?-
2. Religion develops as a recognition of our innate conscious awareness of morality and natural order/design.
3. Religion brings absolution from Sin.
To be complete, your number 1 should explain the origin of innate conscious awareness of morality, as well as the origin of innate conscious awareness of natural order/design. Feel free to break number 1 into as many steps as you think are necessary. You will also need an objective model for determining applicable examples of natural order/design. What is the mechanism for innate conscious awareness? How does your creator being fit in?
*---note:
In order to be a good theory, the Dark Thesis has to explain the origin of the Moral Instinct as well. It does just that, with this key mimetic insight:
If the moral instinct is the root of morality, what is the root of the moral instinct? The elegantly simple answer is fear. Properly speaking, mimetic fear. The roughing up of something that looks like me, produces the real and justifiable fear that it could be me next time around.
The strength of our moral instinct determines what kind of society humans can structure. This is the "Goldy Locks and the porage" principle in evolution:
1. Eewww. This moral instinct is too sweet (i.e. sees bad treatment of brothers and sisters as a bad thing). Another group will evolve a moral instinct that is less moral to take advantage. Though the overly sweet (more moral than Jesus) first group is my personal favorite of the three, they will, nonetheless, die out, along with their goody two shoes attitude.
2. Yuck. This moral instinct is too sour (i.e. sees bad treatment of brothers and sisters as a personal benefit). This disgusting animal will not develop a civilization. The society would self destruct each time the complexity could not rise. If it could avoid self destruction and reach a high enough state of complexity, depending on resources, it could become fascistic enough to resemble a bee hive or an ant hill, with the individual completely subsumed by the group.
3. Mmmmm. This moral instinct is just right (i.e. invents religion to white wash and justify violence). This is the perfect balance that has made the human species so successful that we have bled the planet of it's resources and set in motion our own near term extinction. Yipeee.
Ashvin,
Once you complete your homework assignment, Ill ask you some questions to see if your theory of everything is as good as mine!
And please don't take your offense at my use of the word "homework" above as an excuse for not doing it. That would be intellectually dishonest. "Homework" is just meant as a little joke.
Seriously, unless you can make a legitimate objection as to the form of my challenge, the proper and respectful thing to do is to sincerely attempt it. That way we can compare and contrast our views with real, sharp clarity, for all to see and evaluate. Comparing apples to apples is always the best way, don't you think? WWJD?
---Futilitist
---PS
Everyone,
Please checkout my latest blog post entitled "Picturing Ashvin's Redemption". Hot off the Futilitist press. Here is the link:
http://futilitist.blogspot.com/2012/10/picturing-ashvins-redemption.html
Part 2 to follow? We shall have to wait and see. In the meantime, Enjoy.
Futilitist
- Yellow Psycho
- Chatty
- Posts: 184
Quote from: Ka
They (religions) know, as you do, about the basic wrongness of humanity.I cannot agree with the "as you do" part. Religions sense things. Science attempts to know things. They have very different methodologies.
Quote from: Ka
Well, one might view Christianity in this way if you are a materialist Darwinian evolutionist (MDE), but in any case, this is not true of religion in general. Buddhism, for example, goes deeply into the cause of our bad behavior (briefly, egoic attachment, a consequence of an erroneous view of the self), and so provides a method for a cure (in brief, the Eightfold Path). Guilt, in this scheme, is just another symptom of attachment. (I am not, or not entirely, a Buddhist, by the way. But I do think they have the better diagnosis of our basic insanity).Buddhism is quite admirable compared to most religions. But they did not discover mirror neurons, thus confirming mimetic theory. Science did that.
Quote from: Ka
This (and most of the rest of your comment) is the viewpoint of a MDE, but the question I raised is whether one should examine the basic wrongness of humanity from such a viewpoint. And, what you say is not true of the core of religions. Anyone who considers their religion to be comforting, or as a means to avoid dealing with their wrongness, or sees their distasteful behavior validated, does not understand their own religion at its core (and there are many such).I am not examining the basic wrongness of humanity. Scientifically speaking, there is no rightness or wrongness in nature. I am trying to understand how things work, not why.
Quote from: Ka
I'm not sure what questions you regard as being premature. Is it true that our lot is futile? The answer is "no" if one is a religionist. The answer is "still working on it" (I think you are saying) if one is a MDE. On the other hand, the religionist does say that our lot is futile if we are going to depend on our own will-power to set things right (though what this means in practice differs between religions).These are all interesting and valid questions to ask. But what are you asking them about? It is premature to ask questions about the meaning of any thing without understanding everything else you can about the thing first. Otherwise you might draw the wrong conclusions. I might have more "faith" in a Buddhist's ideas about human nature if that Buddhist had some real working knowledge of neuroscience. He might have some very valuable insights to add from a Buddhist perspective, but until he accounts for the latest scientific understanding in developing his views, he will more than likely just be wrong.
Also, will power is a very tricky concept. If the Dark Thesis is correct, we don't actually posses free will or willpower, and even if we did, we could never know our own will in advance of any seemingly willful act. This has already been conclusively proven by neuroscientists experimentally. Can acceptance of this shocking reality ever be fully embraced by any religion?
I think we need a new religion.
---Futilitist
As I hit the post button on the above post, I am shocked to find that RE has split the thread. Bitching about this is what lead to the wacky chain of events that got me stuck in "Solitary" in the first place!
RE
- Administrator
- Gunslinger
- Posts: 2577
I'm starting to get tired of the current exercise in metaphysical bullshit going on between the F-boys and Ka, so I will make it disappear here for a while for everyone but Green Shrinks, Psychos and Admins by splitting off the last few posts and moving them to the Psychos-R-Us board. After the debate is done with, later I go back and Merge the thread back in to this one. So everything stays ordered up correctly.
POOF! Disappeared! LOL.
If you sign out you'll see the "Guest View" of the Diner. If you sign in with a Regular Member ID, you'll see a few more things. You'll only see the current Metaphysical Bullshit going on between the F-boys and Ka if you are a Shrink or Psycho.
Nifty, huh? LOL.
Admin. Power of GOD on a Forum.
RE
At this point, I am *WAY* pissed! I decide that this would be a good time to give RE an ultimatum. The EDIT below came after I went to the new thread to see how much of the content got <snipped> from the opening. I had also just experienced how hidden the new thread is. I'm only getting madder.
Futilitist
- Yellow Psycho
- Chatty
- Posts: 185
We just got a good conversation going with detail and continuity. I was having fun talking to someone, now I'm just pissed. Why is everyone afraid to have this conversation? I mean if people don't like it, don't look. Go somewhere and talk about something else. I just got out of the can the other day. I didn't even complain about being labeled as an Ashvin like psycho, even as I was busy kicking his religious wacko ass for you. I don't even begin to see what you just gained by splitting this thread. Free speech means being able to talk about things that some people don't like. You must begin to run an ethical system here at the Doomstead Diner, otherwise you will lose all of you quality posters. I am available to act as site Ombudsman using applied mimetics. In the meantime, please restore the thread. And also remove the stupid psycho label you put on me. You know I don't deserve it. I paid my debt to society. Quid Pro Quo, sir. Thank you. What do you think Ka?
RE,
I am genuinely shocked, hurt, and disappointed with you. Some of my posts take hours to construct. I try to treat each post like a work of art. If you want to unmotivate me you are doing a great job.
---Futilitist
*EDIT*
PS---Did you read my latest blog post? You get the last word and you come off looking great. Tuff, but heart warming. I have begun editing in this new surprise ending you've just provided me. I don't want to do this. You won't look as good in the new edit.
I won't change a thing if you restore this thread as well as my good name, sir. Your choice.
« Last Edit: Today at 11:18:16 PM by Futilitist »
In the above post, I go from negotiation to blackmail! I have made up my mind that I simply cannot compromise. I wait for RE to answer...
Continuity is intact and you are free to continue this debate with Watson and Ka, along with anyone else who wants to participate. Nothing has been edited, and once you guys finish hashing it out, I'll merge it back into the originating thread. I just won't let the last 100 comments be overrun with this thread.
What is gained by Splitting the thread TEMPORARILY is that it doesn't monopolize the conversation in the Last 100 comments.
Anyhow, if you wish to excoriate me for my Creative Board Moderation on the pages of your Futilitism Blog, please feel free to do so.
Beyond that, if you decide you need to excoriate me HERE as well, I'll flip you back to Red Psycho and moderate your posts BEFORE they hit the board and they will ONLY show up on the Psychos-R-Us board.
Dems R Da RULES here, LIVE WITH IT.
RE
RE
- Administrator
- Gunslinger
- Posts: 2578
Re: Picturing Christ: Ashvin Pandurangi
RE - Administrator
- Gunslinger
- Posts: 2578
Um...RE,
We just got a good conversation going with detail and continuity. I was having fun talking to someone, now I'm just pissed. Why is everyone afraid to have this conversation? I mean if people don't like it, don't look. Go somewhere and talk about something else. I just got out of the can the other day. I didn't even complain about being labeled as an Ashvin like psycho, even as I was busy kicking his religious wacko ass for you. I don't even begin to see what you just gained by splitting this thread. Free speech means being able to talk about things that some people don't like. You must begin to run an ethical system here at the Doomstead Diner, otherwise you will lose all of you quality posters. I am available to act as site Ombudsman using applied mimetics. In the meantime, please restore the thread. And also remove the stupid psycho label you put on me. You know I don't deserve it. I paid my debt to society. Quid Pro Quo, sir. Thank you. What do you think Ka?
RE,
I am genuinely shocked, hurt, and disappointed with you. Some of my posts take hours to construct. I try to treat each post like a work of art. If you want to unmotivate me you are doing a great job.
Continuity is intact and you are free to continue this debate with Watson and Ka, along with anyone else who wants to participate. Nothing has been edited, and once you guys finish hashing it out, I'll merge it back into the originating thread.
I just won't let the last 100 comments be overrun with this thread.What is gained by Splitting the thread TEMPORARILY is that it doesn't monopolize the conversation in the Last 100 comments.
Anyhow, if you wish to excoriate me for my Creative Board Moderation on the pages of your Futilitism Blog, please feel free to do so.
Beyond that, if you decide you need to excoriate me HERE as well, I'll flip you back to Red Psycho and moderate your posts BEFORE they hit the board and they will ONLY show up on the Psychos-R-Us board.
Dems R Da RULES here, LIVE WITH IT.
RE
Futilitist
- Yellow Psycho
- Chatty
- Posts: 186
Re: Picturing Christ: Ashvin Pandurangi
« Reply #83 on: Today at 11:48:41 PM »
FUCK YOU RE,
I am done here. From now on I will only write about you from other forums. I am *WAY* too good for this place. I resign.
---Futilitist
I am done here. From now on I will only write about you from other forums. I am *WAY* too good for this place. I resign.
---Futilitist
And Ka now is now a Green Shrink.
Ka
- Green Shrink
- Chatty
- Posts: 73
Continuity is intact and you are free to continue this debate with Watson and Ka, along with anyone else who wants to participate. Nothing has been edited, and once you guys finish hashing it out, I'll merge it back into the originating thread.
What is gained by Splitting the thread TEMPORARILY is that it doesn't monopolize the conversation in the Last 100 comments.
Dems R Da RULES here, LIVE WITH IT.
FWIW, I think this is a good move. Although I think the issues being raised are of great importance in the context of Doom -- since how we think of and react to the oncoming disasters is going to be determined by our consciously or unconsciously held metaphysical assumptions, and it is better that they be conscious -- I think your and JoeP's and I'm sure many others' concern that too much of it, proportionally, gives a bad first (and second...) impression of what this board is about to be a valid one. Although one might note that the proportionality is high because there just doesn't seem to be much else going on that is controversial. Maybe we're just in a wait and see stage, for the election to be over, or for the Maya date to pass by, or whatever.
However, you are forgetting your Fritz Perl in calling it metaphysical bullshit. In his categorization of discourse (camelshit, bullshit, and chickenshit), metaphysics is in the first category.
Ka
- Green Shrink
- Chatty
- Posts: 73
Religions sense things. Science attempts to know things. They have very different methodologies.
What science can know is limited to the objective. Reality consists of more than the objective, in particular, that which knows the objective, about which science has nothing to contribute. Of course, one can believe that the subjective is an illusion (a philosophy known as eliminative materialism), which I consider whacko.
Quote from: Futilitist
Buddhism is quite admirable compared to most religions. But they did not discover mirror neurons, thus confirming mimetic theory. Science did that.
So? To the extent that scientific discoveries show some belief held by a religionist to be false, then the intelligent religionist recognizes that that particular belief was a superstition, and gets rid of it. In that way, science makes the core stronger. But since that core lies outside of the objective realm, science has nothing to say about the core itself.
Quote from: Futilitist
I am not examining the basic wrongness of humanity. Scientifically speaking, there is no rightness or wrongness in nature. I am trying to understand how things work, not why.
I dropped out of a program in cognitive science when I realized that no model of the mind could incorporate how consciousness works. So I would say that if by "how things work" you include mind, your attempt is futile. And if it doesn't include mind, it is irrelevant to morals and the rest.
Quote from: Futilitist
These are all interesting and valid questions to ask. But what are you asking them about? It is premature to ask questions about the meaning of any thing without understanding everything else you can about the thing first.
But you will never understand, through science, the most relevant aspects to these questions.
Quote from: Futilitist
Otherwise you might draw the wrong conclusions. I might have more "faith" in a Buddhist's ideas about human nature if that Buddhist had some real working knowledge of neuroscience. He might have some very valuable insights to add from a Buddhist perspective, but until he accounts for the latest scientific understanding in developing his views, he will more than likely just be wrong.
Alternatively, if you think you will understand the mind through neuroscience, you will be wrong. Meditation, from this alternate point of view, is the preferred tool.
Quote from: Futilitist
Also, will power is a very tricky concept. If the Dark Thesis is correct, we don't actually posses free will or willpower, and even if we did, we could never know our own will in advance of any seemingly willful act. This has already been conclusively proven by neuroscientists experimentally. Can acceptance of this shocking reality ever be fully embraced by any religion?
While I deny that any such thing has been conclusively proven by neuroscience, I am actually -- not in agreement, since I haven't concluded anything -- let's say sympathetic to the idea that "we" don't actually possess free will or willpower. But by that I mean our ego-conscious does not possess it. However, there is conscious creativity, which is what having free will means, but I suspect it lies solely in the spiritual arena from which our ego consciousness is cut off. In this scheme, the ego is the physically-directed portion of a larger consciousness, which provides the larger consciousness with feedback. So there is free will, but it does not lie within the ego consciousness.
On a religious note, recall Paul's dictum: God's will, not my will, be done. If my little theory is correct, and substituting "larger consciousness" for "God", then the dictum simply becomes a recognition of fact. The basic wrongness of humanity thus is understood to be that because the ego thinks it is exercising willpower, it provides bad feedback.
Quote from: Futilitist
I think we need a new religion.
Working on it, but rest assured that whatever I may come up with will still be anathema to MDE.
Ashvin
- Yellow Psycho
- Thinker
- Posts: 461
The recent discovery of mirror neurons helps to confirm mimetic theory, for example.
You do realize that mimetic theory was developed by a Christian... who remains Christian?? The fact that you claim its scientific confirmation helps your atheist worldview more than my Christian one is absurd. Science confirming the hardware through which parts of God's programming works is great for Christianity. Without a "scapegoat" in the exact form of Christ, there would be no Christianity or human salvation.
Quote from: Futilitist
My position is internally consistant. Your position is filled with so many contradictions, irrelevancies, errors of circular reasoning, and deductive, inductive, and retroductive fallacies, that it elicits an extreme sense of futility when attempting a response. Sometimes I just don't know where to begin.
Amazing... you managed to construct a fallacious argument (all conclusions, no support) out of accusations of logical fallacies.
Quote from: Futilitist
3. More seriously, I would like to get deeper into the basic model I proposed for the evolution of religion. I would like to compare my model with yours. Here is my model again:
1. Sin produces Guilt. (This happens because we posses a moral instinct.)*
2. Guilt produces Religion.
3. Religion brings Absolution from Sin.
I contend that number 1 is not controversial. Number 3 is professed by you to be absolutely true. I see it as a nice try, and true for the purposes of this discussion. Thus, both numbers 1 and 3 are commonly agreed to be true, and can, therefore, be taken as given. That only leaves number 2 to be argued.
It obviously isn't that simple, as anyone with a basic understanding of history can see. Sin also produces pleasure sometimes, or anger, or fear or lust or any number of things. But I will grant you this simplified model for the sake of argument. #2 all depends on how you define "religion". I am willing to grant you #2 if religion is defined as "a desire of humans to commune and reconnect with God".
Quote from: Futilitist
My Model
1. Sin produces Guilt.
2. Guilt produces Religion
3. Religion brings Absolution from Sin.
My Model
1. Sin produces Guilt.
2. Guilt produces Religion
3. Religion brings Absolution from Sin.
Ashvin's Model
1. A Fall away from God produces sin and evil
2. Religion develops as a recognition of our innate conscious awareness of moral values, sin/evil (violation of moral values) and natural order/design.
3. Religion (in the context of Biblical Christianity) brings absolution (redemption) from sin/evil.
Quote from: Futilitist
To be complete, your number 1 should explain the origin of innate conscious awareness of morality, as well as the origin of innate conscious awareness of natural order/design. Feel free to break number 1 into as many steps as you think are necessary. You will also need an objective model for determining applicable examples of natural order/design. What is the mechanism for innate conscious awareness? How does your creator being fit in?
The origin is God - He defines morality through His existence (He is the definition of moral) and programs awareness of such morality into our spirits/souls. There are plenty of models for natural order and design - just pick any scientific field... our Creator fits is with every aspect of creation, from the mathematical formulations of natural laws in the beginning to the most artistic expressions of human beings that will survive until the end of this creation.
Quote from: Futilitist
In order to be a good theory, the Dark Thesis has to explain the origin of the Moral Instinct as well. It does just that, with this key mimetic insight:
If the moral instinct is the root of morality, what is the root of the moral instinct? The elegantly simple answer is fear. Properly speaking, mimetic fear. The roughing up of something that looks like me, produces the real and justifiable fear that it could be me next time around.
The strength of our moral instinct determines what kind of society humans can structure. This is the "Goldy Locks and the porage" principle in evolution:
1. Eewww. This moral instinct is too sweet (i.e. sees bad treatment of brothers and sisters as a bad thing). Another group will evolve a moral instinct that is less moral to take advantage. Though the overly sweet (more moral than Jesus) first group is my personal favorite of the three, they will, nonetheless, die out, along with their goody two shoes attitude.
2. Yuck. This moral instinct is too sour (i.e. sees bad treatment of brothers and sisters as a personal benefit). This disgusting animal will not develop a civilization. The society would self destruct each time the complexity could not rise. If it could avoid self destruction and reach a high enough state of complexity, depending on resources, it could become fascistic enough to resemble a bee hive or an ant hill, with the individual completely subsumed by the group.
3. Mmmmm. This moral instinct is just right (i.e. invents religion to white wash and justify violence). This is the perfect balance that has made the human species so successful that we have bled the planet of it's resources and set in motion our own near term extinction. Yipeee.
No, a good scientific theory has to not only make speculations about how something has evolved, but to perform scientific research using testable models that can lend support to those speculations. All of the above is pure speculation. Like I said before, Neo-Darwinian evolution needs to first get over the hurdle of not being able to explain the evolution of homosapien sapien from "common ancestors" before we can seriously consider the possibility that it could establish the evolution of mimetic principles or morality or anything else in humans.
« Last Edit: Today at 08:41:13 AM by Ashvin »
RE
- Administrator
- Gunslinger
- Posts: 2581
Well, it sounds like you already managed to prove RE correct about the Psychos-R-Us structure and have claimed to leave again, but I'll respond anyway...
F-Bomb didn't quit. He's just ticked off.
RE
I probably should have left well enough alone, but I just couldn't resist milking it one more time. Time to whip out some Charles Schultz. Notice my demotion to Red Psycho, below..
Futilitist
- Red Psycho
- Chatty
- Posts: 187
Note: This message is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Charles Schultz was a genius. The cartoon above is a perfect illustration of the drama triangle, one of the most basic concepts in mimetic theory. All human social interaction is based on this relationship. Lucy and Charlie Brown are mimetic rivals. The ball is the object of desire.
Rene Girard had his key insight into mimetics based on his work in literary criticism of historical novels. The drama triangle exists in all story telling, because the human brain is wired for it.
For Ka,
You are making the same argument for the third time. This time you are getting the last word. Getting the last word is important to you because I already refuted your argument twice. In guess you win. And I am not dissing you with this. You seem to to be a genuinely curious person, and I have enjoyed our conversation very much. I don't want to leave, but I feel that I must if conditions do not improve here. I make this sacrifice for your sake as well. I hope you can understand.
For Ashvin,
Thank you for taking the time to build your model. I wish I could hang out and talk with you about it. You really do seem to groove on tagging me as a psycho, though. Please stop that. It is not an intellectually honest approach.
For RE,
I will rejoin this conversation if, and only if, we can make a deal. These are my conditions:
1. You restore my full, unrestricted posting privileges.
2. Stop splitting the threads so capriciously. There are times that you may need to, but don't do it to interfere with the free speech of others.
3. You remove the psycho labels from Me, as well as Ashvin. And also remove the psycho fetish label you placed on Ka. These labels make it much harder to discuss interesting and important topics. These topics raise the general level of discourse on this site. And no one should be labeled. It is the mark of the scapegoat.
Here is a label:
I don't like labels.
I don't know about your "last 100" thing you always talk about, but as administrator that is your problem, not mine. Just post more stuff that you want to talk about, don't restrict others' right to post. That makes you seem like a jealous GOD. Just sayin'. If you disagree with what I say, argue with me, don't censor me. We can just apply CFS. My sense of basic fairness on all of this is triggered directly by my moral instinct. I think we all know what is fair. Thank you.
---Futilitist, final post?
RE
- Administrator
- Gunslinger
- Posts: 2584
For Ashvin,
Thank you for taking the time to build your model. I wish I could hang out and talk with you about it. You really do seem to groove on tagging me as a psycho, though. Please stop that. It is not an intellectually honest approach.
Watson has also been tagged as a Psycho, F-Bomb.
Unlike you, he is showing some sense of humour and not getting all bent out of shape over it. This is a peer to peer discussion, Psycho to Psycho. LOL.Personally, I think the "Psychos-R-Us" parody of "Toys-R-Us" is just hilarious.
Quote from: Futilitist
For RE,
I will rejoin this conversation if, and only if, we can make a deal. These are my conditions:
1. You restore my full, unrestricted posting privileges.
2. Stop splitting the threads so capriciously. There are times that you may need to, but don't do it to interfere with the free speech of others.
3. You remove the psycho labels from Me, as well as Ashvin. And also remove the psycho fetish label you placed on Ka. These labels make it much harder to discuss interesting and important topics. These topics raise the general level of discourse on this site. And no one should be labeled. It is the mark of the scapegoat.
Here is a label:
I don't like labels.
I don't know about your "last 100" thing you always talk about, but as administrator that is your problem, not mine. Just post more stuff that you want to talk about, don't restrict others' right to post. That makes you seem like a jealous GOD. Just sayin'. If you disagree with what I say, argue with me, don't censor me. We can just apply CFS. My sense of basic fairness on all of this is triggered directly by my moral instinct. I think we all know what is fair. Thank you.
I hate to be the one to break this to you F-Bomb, but you are in no position to make any demands. First off, you Violated Parole, in Large Type Red Letters too! LOL.
Second, in case you haven't noticed, this is my Sandbox, I pay da bills, I OWN the copyright and I take orders from NOBODY. About the LAST person on earth I would take advice from on how to run a Forum is YOU.
Third, even the other Diners here discussing Metaphysical Camelshit with you are fine with discussing it here, and grasp the reasons why it is here.
Now, if you behave like a Mensch again for a while and not a Jackass, I'll let you off the leash again, but this was a very big Parole Violation on the order of Lindsay Lohan being caught Speeding DUI with a Kilo of Cocaine in the Glove Compartment 24 hours after exiting Rehab.
You gotta admit, this is a Big Improvement over Solitary in the Dungeon.
Anyhow, my problem to solve as Admin was you, and I solved it. Your problem to solve is that I am Admin and you are YOU. Since you can't change me, the only way to solve your problem is to change YOU. For One Brief Shining Moment, you actually showed some CFS, but alas it did not last. So, another round in Rehab.
RE
And his answer above perfectly sets up my next and final post at the Doomstead Diner. I feel pretty good about the way this one turns out. The little video at the end really hits the nail on the head.
RE,
Please have the heart, the soul, the decency, and the sense of humor and intellegence to post this, my absolute final post. I had a pretty good time and I really learned a lot here at the Doomstead Diner. I will miss you guys.
Please have the heart, the soul, the decency, and the sense of humor and intellegence to post this, my absolute final post. I had a pretty good time and I really learned a lot here at the Doomstead Diner. I will miss you guys.
Quote from: RE
I hate to be the one to break this to you F-Bomb, but you are in no position to make any demands. First off, you Violated Parole, in Large Type Red Letters too! LOL.
And I hate to be the one to break this to you RE, but I didn't make any demands. I offered you a deal, as an equal. I am not your NIGGER.
Quote from: RE
Second, in case you haven't noticed, this is my Sandbox, I pay da bills, I OWN the copyright and I take orders from NOBODY.
And in case you haven't noticed, I don't care. Why didn't you just throw me out of your sandbox to begin with?
Quote from: RE
About the LAST person on earth I would take advice from on how to run a Forum is YOU.
That figures. Offer revoked.
Quote from: RE
Third, even the other Diners here discussing Metaphysical Camelshit with you are fine with discussing it here, and grasp the reasons why it is here.
I think the reason that other "diners" are fine with your BULLSHIT is because they have no choice. They just don't have the kind of BALLS that I do. I called John Micheal Greer a CHARLATAN, on TOD, and I took a lot of SHIT for it! On LATOC I went head to head with Picasso Moon, Lynn Margulis, and George Soros, all at the same time! On Cog Sci I told them this crap was all about GROUPTHINK. They BANNED me! At the jam I told the drug dealer, Ron Dyer, that he is in no position to know what people under him actually think. They will always lie to power. That's why they say: "It's lonely at the top". And that was right before 350 pound RAUL hit me blind-side, and I got up and hit him back! With my fucking DRUMSTICK! Futilitists laugh in the face of power. Futili-Terrorists sometimes provoke it. Somebody call HOMELAND SECURITY!
Quote from: RE
Now, if you behave like a Mensch again for a while and not a Jackass, I'll let you off the leash again, but this was a very big Parole Violation on the order of Lindsay Lohan being caught Speeding DUI with a Kilo of Cocaine in the Glove Compartment 24 hours after exiting Rehab.
Ha ha. I am not subject to your Nuremberg Laws.
Quote from: RE
You gotta admit, this is a Big Improvement over Solitary in the Dungeon.
Dude, I don't gotta admit nothin'. Listen Sheriff, as soon as I got out of the slammer, I booked the next Flight2Quality out of your shithole town. I got my WIFI hook up and I'm sippin' my Corona, sitting in my first class seat right now. The captain has just turned off the fasten your seatbelt sign, and I'm fucking free to walk about the cabin!
Quote from: RE
Anyhow, my problem to solve as Admin was you, and I solved it. Your problem to solve is that I am Admin and you are YOU. Since you can't change me, the only way to solve your problem is to change YOU. For One Brief Shining Moment, you actually showed some CFS, but alas it did not last. So, another round in Rehab.
Shit, I'm sorry, what were you saying? Anyway, I gotta get going now. Good luck, everyone...
---Futilitist
You gotta admit, we Jews are pretty, smart, and funny!
No comments:
Post a Comment